Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Creationism Is Deceitful By Design

Borrowed this from a friend.


rick b said...

The Video is a joke, here's why. I never personally said every christian and creationist is 100 percent honest while every atheist is a liar.

We have been over this before as shown from the movie expelled. Their are no "great minds" when it comes to evolution that can explain how life arose from non life, so you guys can only assume it happened. Then you guys cry, we have science and science can be tested and proven, but I showed it cannot.

Then as I have showed before, you guys lie on purpose, so one guy claims to be a creationist and he lied, that does not mean every one lied or is clueless. This is just another example of dodging the bigger issues and tossing smoke and mirrors out to deflect the bigger issues at hand. Rick b

Jeff said...

Hi, Interested.

I hesitate to comment on this, since I know Rick and you have been going at it, and I saw where you said you've had it. I also saw where you have just come out of a recent physical close call.

Nevertheless, I'll post a little bit about my reaction to the video, regarding just a few of the things the speaker said.

I try to be honest, and I am still a Creationist. And it is certainly not impossible to defend Creationism honestly. Though I have not been studying it recently (because I have been intensely studying Islam for the past few months, and I was studying cults before that), I spent years investigating the arguments, and debating with Evolutionists, and all of that only made my belief in 6-day Creationism much stronger.

The speaker says there has never been a verifiable, accurate argument for Creationism, but he fails to point out that there has never been a single fossil found that proves macro-evolution from one species to another. In truth, you cannot scientifically prove either Creation or Darwinian Evolution in a laboratory, because neither one can be repeated through the scientific method.

The speaker says all Creationist's arguments fall into one of two arguments: blind speculation and erroneous claims. IMO, Darwinian Evolution utilizes far more blind speculation than Creationism does. As one example, carbon dating has been used for years to 'prove' Evolution. Yet, carbon dating begins with the assumption that the carbon process takes millions of years to accomplish. However, if the earth is only several thousand years old, then that assumption that carbon dating begins with is a false assumption, and therefore the data derived from carbon dating would be false, for anything dated more than thousands of years, and would be circular reasoning.

As far as "erroneous claims, often repeated despite the knowledge that they have already been disproved," Spontaneous Generation, which Darwinian Evolution is based on, was disproved a hundred years ago. George Wald, a prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: Creation or Spontaneous Generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous Generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

Another example of "erroneous claims, often repeated despite the knowledge that they have already been disproved": An evolutionist once told me, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That's all you need to know." He explained that it took him four years of college to learn those three words. However, the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (recapitulation theory) was shown to be false over 100 years ago.

Interested said...

Jeff I appreciate your well thought out and clearly stated comment. You sent me scurring for information. I have never been well studied on evolution but rather find it impossible to believe we are here as a result of creation. Even if and I quote a friend here " evolution were absolutely and unequivocally disproved and accepted by the scientific community" I could not believe in creation.

I did however find an artical by Ian Musgrave written in 1998 that provides some interesting information. I have only begun to explore this so I must withhold comment about it for now. Since you said you studied evolution in the past you may be familiar with the article found here:


I would be interested in you input.

Interested said...

Here is another article by the same authors but it is interesting because they directly answer Dr. Kent Hovind on several points.


Jeff said...


Even if and I quote a friend here "evolution were absolutely and unequivocally disproved and accepted by the scientific community" I could not believe in creation.

That's why debating about Creation vs. Evolution usually doesn't get anywhere. In order for an Atheist to believe in Creation, they would obviously first have to believe in God, as well as in the supernatural (spiritual world) and miracles. If you don't believe in God, then obviously, you're not going to believe in Creation.

The thing is, whether you believe in Evolution or Creation, neither one can be reproduced, so it's a choice as far as which one you believe, and really, either one is believed in by faith. Some evolutionists claim Evolution is a fact (and in schools, it is usually taught as a proven, accepted fact), while other evolutionists admit it is only a theory. Whenever fossils are found and studied, the scientist already has a preconceived worldview that influences and prejudices his interpretation of the data (because scientists are human too). Many scientists are like you, and simply refuse to accept the possibility of biblical Creation, so, even if the evidence were to seem to point to Creation, they would not accept that interpretation, and they would toss aside any such notion. When I took Journalism in school, I was taught that newspaper reporters were supposed to be completely unbiased; however, I have not met a reporter yet that truly was completely unbiased. Scientists are the same way.

I'm familiar with TalkOrigins.org. But I'm so tired now that it's hard to keep my eyes open, since I've had a tiring day. So, I'll have to read those articles later and comment on them.

Jeff said...


When trying to post this, it's telling me, "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters." So I'm going to have to divide this into 2 comments. I guess I'm going to have to try to make my comments somewhat short and brief from now on, though I have a hard time doing that, because I have so much information I want to share.

Regarding your first link: As far as the calculations showing that abiogenesis is impossible, the most impressive proof I ever saw on that was when I was taking a Logic class in college. The professor, who I think was an Atheist, showed the improbability of it, and there were so many zeros on the board that there were several rows of them. So, Creationists are not the only ones who have pointed that out.

The author of that site says, Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

The very fact that they are not random is, to me, evidence of Intelligent Design. A logical sequence of things, or ordered design, only comes from intelligence.

The author also states, The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule...

One problem with Darwinian Evolution is that it ignores gigantic gaps. For instance, the ability for even a single molecule to be self-replicating is an incredibly complex process that requires an enormous amount of complicated machinery, all working together in an ordered, synchronized way, which is anything but simple. There are many things in biology that suggest irreducible complexity, which presents a huge problem for Darwinian Evolution.

It was once assumed that the basis of life would be very simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made huge progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the complexity of biological systems at the molecular level has left science unable to explain their origins. For example, our DNA in our bodies contains more complex information than what you will find in a computer.

If evolution takes billions of years, then how is it that a sperm and an egg only take 9 months to turn into a human being? Where did protons, neutrons and electrons come from? Where did the quark come from, and what did it evolve from? How did human emotions evolve? How did light evolve? How did a single molecule evolve?

Jeff said...

As I alluded to before, spontaneous generation was disproved by the careful studies of Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858). These men conducted careful experiments that looked beyond superficial appearance. They proved that when matter was pre-sterilized and sealed off from possible biological contamination, no life arose; hence, no spontaneous generation. The work of these men and others has established the law of biogenesis: life comes only from pre-existing life and will only perpetuate its own kind.

"We conclude---unexpectedly---that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." (Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago; Orr, H.A., and Coyne, J.A. (1992) "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," American Naturalist, 140, 726.)

Way back in 1871, St. George Mivart stated some objections that still have not been settled today: "What is to be brought forward (against Darwinism) may be summed up as follows: That "Natural Selection" is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures. That it does not harmonize with the co-existence of closely similar structures of diverse origin. That there are grounds for thinking that specific differences may be developed suddenly instead of gradually. That the opinion that species have definitely though very different limits to their variability is still tenable. That certain fossil transitional forms are absent, which might have been expected to be prese...That there are many remarkable phenomena in organic forms upon which “Natural Selection” throws no light whatever.” (Mivart, St. G. (1871) On the Genesis of Species, Macmillan and Co., London, p. 21)

Nature can produce patterns, but not information. Waves on a beach can form patterns in the sand, but they can never write “Mary loves John” in the sand.

A few years ago, I saw a PBS NOVA program called “Jewel of the Earth.” They talked about Dominican Republic amber, where plants and insects were preserved in fossilized amber. The narrator claimed that these were from 20 million years ago, yet every creature it showed---leaves, tadpoles, wasps, worms, bees, etc.---preserved completely and fully in every detail---look exactly the same today. This is proof for Creation or Intelligent Design, rather than Evolution. Not only were the same creatures existing then as do now, which would suggest that Darwinian (macro) Evolution did not take place, but in the supposed 20 million years between then and now, there have been absolutely no evolved changes in these plants and insects. If their dating conclusion was wrong, and these creatures were actually thousands of years old rather than millions of years old, it would make a lot more sense. They also showed sand flies preserved in amber from (they claimed) 100 million years ago---during which time, they said, dinosaurs roamed the earth. Yet, those sand flies looked just like the sand flies we have today, including their size. All of this was evidence for Creation/Intelligent Design.

Interested said...

"The narrator claimed that these were from 20 million years ago, yet every creature it showed---leaves, tadpoles, wasps, worms, bees, etc.---preserved completely and fully in every detail---look exactly the same today."

This article seems to contradict your statement.


Anonymous said...

I think one thing often overlooked when considering evolution is that science does not have all the answers. The difference between creationist and evolutionist is that creation is a done deal; 6 days and a day of rest. Evolution and the study of it is ongoing and continually changing. The gaps you mention are being filled every day by new discoveries but it is a long time before we know it all.

Nicole said...

Washington Times article from 2/12/09:

According to many of his modern followers, Darwin is the world's greatest scientist, and his theory is the cornerstone of modern biology - if not the whole of modern science.

What, exactly, is Darwin's theory? It is not just "evolution." Evolution can mean "change over time," which no sane person denies. Or it can mean life on Earth has a long history, documented by the fossil record. Yet the general outlines of the fossil record were established before "The Origin of Species" appeared in 1859. And biblical chronology did not play a major role in the 19th-century Darwinian controversies, because by 1859 most educated Christians had accepted geological evidence for an old Earth.

Darwin's theory is that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor, modified by unguided processes such as random variation and natural selection. Although nobody doubts that variation and selection can produce minor changes within existing species ("microevolution"), Darwin claimed that microevolution leads to the origin of new species, organs and body plans ("macroevolution").

Eighty years after "The Origin of Species," evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky acknowledged there was still no hard evidence connecting microevolution and macroevolution. Unfortunately, since only microevolution can be observed within a human lifetime, Mr. Dobzhansky wrote, "We are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit."

This assumption is still an assumption. No one has ever observed the origin of a new species by variation and selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. Not even modern genetics has solved the problem. No matter what we do to the DNA of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly. Although Darwin's modern followers claim there is "overwhelming evidence" for his theory, nothing could be further from the truth.

Nor is Darwin's theory the cornerstone of modern biology. Most of the basic disciplines in biology were founded before Darwin's birth - including anatomy, physiology, botany, zoology, microbiology, systematics, embryology and paleontology. During Darwin's lifetime, Gregor Mendel founded genetics and Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen pioneered comparative biology. But none of these scientists accepted Darwinism.

Actually, Darwinism has always been more philosophy than science. Darwin called "The Origin of Species" "one long argument," and it took the following form: The features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of creation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces. Darwin lacked sufficient evidence for the latter, however, so he ruled out the former by simply declaring that only natural explanations are "scientific."

[Some] atheists want to establish Darwin Day as a secular alternative to Christmas.

Unfortunately, once in power Darwinism (like Marxism) tolerates no dissent. As the 2008 movie "Expelled" documented, scientists and teachers who criticize Darwinism risk ostracism, character assassination and termination of their employment. School boards that encourage students to learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory are besieged by militant atheists who do not want students to question Darwinism.


Interested said...

Much of what Wells has presented has been debunked by The National Center for Science Education.


Jeff said...

This article seems to contradict your statement.

That article is talking about extinct insects. My point was that every one of the tadpoles, wasps, worms, bees, etc. preserved in amber that were shown on that show, looked exactly like what we see today. They did not look any different. I have seen photos and images of extinct species, and such species look very different from anything you see today. From what I could tell, every one of those shown preserved in amber were not extinct, but looked exactly the same as we have today. So again, I see that as evidence of Creation.

Jeff said...

"Take the human body alone---the chance that all the functions of the individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

(George Gallup, originator of the well-known opinion polls)

Anonymous said...

Creationists often argue against evolution by noting that we cannot observe evolution occurring on a grand scale today. In response, evolutionary scientists like to point to bacteria.

Many scientists argue that evolution is happening all the time in bacteria. Bacteria, with their brief life cycles and their ability to reproduce vast multitudes of generations within a nice, short, observable time frame, give scientists a chance to demonstrate "evolution in a Petri dish". The ability of bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics has been trumpeted as evidence of the driving force of evolution and the ability of gene swapping and mutations to make these organisms better able to survive.

However, while bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a reality, it falls far short of demonstrating the theory that all things descended from single-celled organisms billions of years ago. In fact, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics often do so at the cost of their "relative fitness" and can lose pre-existing cellular functions.

Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics in several ways:

Natural resistance:
Bacteria already naturally have some degree of protection against antibiotics, which they need when they run into these enemies, like penicillin, out in the great big world. This resistance only goes so far, and most bacteria will be killed off when faced with large doses of antibiotics for a significant period of time. The bacteria with the greatest resistance ability sometimes survive, though, going on to reproduce and make a plethora of antibiotic-resistant offspring. This is why doctors warn patients to take their entire antibiotics prescription and not stop halfway after the symptoms go away. Failing to take the entire course can allow the strongest bacteria to stick around and reproduce, paving the way for the superbugs we see today.

Of course, the resistance is already present in the bacterial gene pool. While these super strong bacteria offer a basic survival-of-the-fittest demonstration, their resistance to antibiotics is not an essentially new development and therefore doesn't prove evolution in a grander sense.

Horizontal gene transfer.
Bacteria have a tremendous ability to swap genes with each other. This is vital for the health of bacteria, since they reproduce by binary fission (dividing into two parts) and do not benefit from the recombination of genes found in sexual reproduction. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can exchange their genes with other bacteria, and thus pass on the ability to thumb their bacterial noses at modern medicine. Once again, the resistance is already there in the bacterial gene pool and is not an essentially new development.

Mutations. Mutations occur in bacteria in a variety of ways, including copy errors in the bacterial DNA and exposure to mutagens (chemicals or ionizing radiation) that affect bacteria's genetic material. Mutations have also enabled bacteria to resist antibiotics or chemical cleansers in some interesting, but not necessarily truly beneficial, ways.

For instance, some bacteria naturally produce the enzyme penicillinase, which they use to inactivate penicillin when they run into it in nature. If a bacterium has a problem with the gene that codes for shutting off the production of penicillinase, that bacterium will just keep producing the enzyme. This is great for the bacterium in the presence of a penicillin-based antibiotic regimen; in a human body filled with penicillin, this bacterium can survive to reproduce while the normal bacteria around it die. In normal life, though, the bacterium has a problem. It's putting a lot of energy into producing penicillinase, and because it can't turn the valve off, so to speak, it will have trouble doing all the other things it needs to do and will eventually penicillinase-produce itself to death.

Anonymous said...

Many bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics because something has gone wrong and they simply are not functioning properly. The loss of regulatory proteins is a big one. Some bacteria also lose full functioning in transport proteins. Transport proteins are necessary for bringing certain items into the cell. Bacteria that are resistant to Kanamycin get that way because they aren't correctly producing a transport protein, and therefore the Kanamycin can't get through the cell membrane into the bacterial cell to destroy it. If a transport protein is not functioning right, that means something is wrong with the cell, even if that lack of function does protect the bacteria from Kanamycin.

In short, broken genes can help bacteria survive in some circumstances, but we always find they do so at the expense of the general health of the bacteria. In a normal environment, these bacteria die off much more quickly than their normal, healthy relatives.

Gaining An Ability? Citrate in E coli:
In 2008, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing found that a population of E coli, after thousands of generations, had started having trouble metabolizing glucose and instead had started to metabolize citrate. This was a big deal, and was touted as an important evolutionary step for the E coli. As New Scientist put it,

"…But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."

To the common reader, that sounds as though E coli mutated a brand new trait out of thin air. Especially since New Scientist goes on to say, "Indeed the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. Coli from other species."

It is true that regular old E coli doesn't normally metabolize citrate. However, it does have the ability to do so under specific conditions. In August 1998, the Journal of Bacteriology published an article on the ability of E coli to convert citrate to acetate and succinate under anoxic conditions (the absence of oxygen) when an oxidizable cosubstrate like glucose is present. In other words, if sugar is present and oxygen isn't, E coli does have the capacity to "eat" citrate.

Discovering exactly what happened to "up" this ability is up to Dr. Lenski's team. He has samples of E coli populations from thousands of generations over the years, and he can pinpoint the specific changes that led to make E coli's already existing citrate carrier expand its horizons.

We just find it interesting that these citrate-munching E coli have also lost a lot of their ability to eat glucose, their normal food.

Evolutionists argue that evolutionary change doesn't always have to be a drive upward. They say that evolutionary change can offer benefits at the same time as losing other useful functions. That's fine. Except that we never see any examples of truly upward "change." If there is a new or improved ability in an organism, we find that it was always tucked away there in the genetic code. Otherwise, "new" traits tend to come with a loss of information, a loss of function, a mistake, an error that might temporarily offer some benefit to the creature at hand, but in the long run harms it. The man with no esophagus will have a hard time getting sick from a foodborne illness, but few people will argue that living by feeding tube is a long-term beneficial "adaption." Evolutionists keep trying to argue that similar losses or defects offer beneficial adaption, but all we see in these mutations is net deterioration.

In all this, we find that bacteria are still bacteria. They are not developing new organelles that were not previously present. For good or bad, fully functioning or not, they just continue to behave like bacteria. We say, aside from thousands of years of genetic weakening, they are still doing what God designed them to do.

Anonymous said...

Evolution vs. Creation: Complexity
The Evolution vs. Creation debate further seeks to solve the riddle of complexity. Creationists believe the universe was designed to be complex by an Intelligent Designer. Evolutionists, in their effort to exclude a designer, contend that complexity has developed from simplicity over time. Evolutionists view time as their solution. However, hard science tells us that time is the enemy of complexity. This fact has been so well documented that it has obtained the stature of a physical law, the "Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Jeff said...

If natural selection occurred, why are bacteria, one-celled animals and flagellum still around? They should have evolved long ago!

Also, since we do still have such simple life forms still around, then why don't we see any intermediate species? Why don't we see any half-birds or half-fishes? Why don't we see things like something which is half reptile and half bird?

Jeff said...

An old textbook I own, called "Fundamental Concepts of Modern Biology," shows illustrations of "Eohippus and its horselike descendants." It shows a time period, from Eohippus to Equus, of 60,000,000 years. It states, "Each series of fossils has enabled scientists to trace the evolution of the animal from ancestral species to modern species." Yet, analysis of selective breeding indicates that considerable size variation exists within the original DNA codes for horses. Even today, we have 'miniature' horses. In addition, I have read that fossils of multi-toed "horses" are actually a species form of the coney, which is not a horse at all.

Jeff said...

That linked article about Jonathan Wells claims that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. In actuality, this extinct bird has nothing really unusual. Several birds, as well as reptiles, have teeth. Some birds even have claws on wings, serving various functions (i.e., the ostrich, the touraco and the hoatzin).

Jeff said...

Again, in that linked article on Jonathan Wells, the author states, "The peppered moth photos are...not scientific evidence for natural selection."

Yet, in my old textbook called "Fundamental Concepts of Modern Biology," it states, "The peppered moth and organisms resistant to modern chemicals are examples of what might be called "instant" evolution."

Actually, peppered moths have always existed in light, intermediate and dark-colored varieties. The dark-colored moths had always existed. The air pollution simply caused a shift in the populations of the dark- verses light-colored moths.

"The (peppered moths) experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection---or survival of the fittest---in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from the beginning to end Biston betularia." (Matthews, L.H., The Origin of Species, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin, J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. 10.)

rick b said...

Something that has occurred many times and is recorded over the years is this, an all white male and all white female give birth to a solid black child. Many have accused the wife of cheating on the husband because of this, after DNA tests it was proven it was their child.

The point in saying this is, If evolution is real and we evolved from Apes or monkeys then at some point in time a women should have given birth to a monkey or ape.

This has never happened and never will. Black skinned people are just as human as white, Monkeys are not and never have been or will be human, That is why two solid white skinned people can give birth to a child so black you think he was from Africa, yet humans will never give birth to monkeys or Apes. Rick b